forgive me if I mess up or ramble on, I'm very tired this morning
Gaming as a hobby is the worst state, because it means there's no possibility for it to be taken as a serious art form. I can't wait until people stop thinking of games as toys and actually start seeing their deeper, more important impact on society.
Gaming is already perceived as an art form by a fair few amount of people, even non-developers. The problem is that gaming has only just now become a regular pastime, there's still a lot titles that people who weren't playing games a couple years ago haven't even begun to scratch the surface of. These said people probably don't think of games as anything more than just games. These people either don't have the time or patience to get involved with great titles, and instead stick with what they know.
The improper way of convincing them is to tell them that they're wrong about games. On a fundamental level, they're not wrong. Games are just games. Some people don't realize just how much video games have shaped culture in the past five or ten years. What we're witnessing may be the start of an art form, but in it's current state I wouldn't call it art in the likes of the great works of art we know of today.
I foresee the issue with pushing out the first real work of art in game form will take a bit, considering the real issue with game development becoming more and more expensive on a professional level, and the fear of taking risks in the market. It took generations for movies to become something greater than just moving pictures, so I think it's fair to say games as an art form still needs time.
Right now the general perception of games is that they're only a hobby/toy, and that is all they're good for. When people want to create serious games they either get beat down or ignored because "GAME ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FUN [Note: Fun as in funny/happy, not the true meaning of fun]!!!!!1!" by the same people who are happy to declare that games are art since they don't understand that the word "art" doesn't mean "good".
I don't think anything is wrong with gaming as a hobby. People who have a serious hobby in gaming take games more seriously than your average gamers. I have a feeling people who play games as a hobby would be more open to artistic games.
With the fun bit, some very popular games aren't fun. For example, I don't think anyone thought Silent Hill 2 was fun, yet it's probably one of the closest titles comparable to works of art. Silent Hill 2 was about the experience, the atmosphere and what kind of tone it set. From start to finish, it was continual dread, torment and sometimes even agony. But people loved it, not because it was fun but because it introduced something new and fresh
You're completely right, making games solely to be fun is extremely limiting, and probably frustrating to developers who want to make something more. But there's the potential to do that already, it's just harder to click with your audience. The reason that not as many people are doing this nowadays is because of the fear of doing something different. Like I said about games being more expensive to develop, all the money put into development is essentially wasted if the game flops. Publishers and developers equally are afraid of trying something new or different for this very reason.
Even though a lot of silly movies are released, I think the general perception of movies is that it's taken far more seriously than games. I don't think there's anywhere near as bad movies being released in major theatres or online distribution points since a lot of moviemakers have a very clear list of standards and study a lot in order to get where they are now.
Going off of my country's culture, movies have come a
long way. It wasn't until the 1920s that movies started to become something more than just motion pictures, almost hundreds of years after movies first started being developed. And since then, lots and lots of great works have been released. The movie medium has a lot of time, study and effort behind it. The difference between movies and games is that movies are a few hours of an experience, and games can range from a few hours to a few months of continuous entertainment.
I would go so far as to say a game on the same quality level of, let's say, the original star wars would definitely be harder to develop right than a movie. It requires so many more factors and variables to get it just right, and sometimes making it just right is the hardest god damn thing in the world, but I don't have to tell you that
That's at least my take from the situation. Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but it sure sometimes feels like I picked the wrong medium since we're not at a point where it's mature.
At worst, you picked a just-now-budding medium that still has a lot of change to go through before it's taken seriously on a global scale. As a developer, you're probably going to see the lowest and highest points of gaming in the years to come.
Because art is about commenting on the world so that we can attempt to improve it. We use art to show people our viewpoints, our concerns, what excites us, what we're nostalgic for etc.
Again using movies as an example, we can look at the eras of movies to see a sort of inspiration recycle effect going on. ala quinten tarantino being inspired to direct movies because of movies he watched as a kid, then his movies inspired many other directors to develop movies. Games work the same way, if not even easier with how simple it can be to enter the market.
People think that artists and philosophers are stuffy coats with massive narcissistic attitudes and think they're better than everybody else. The real truth of the matter is that most artists are just chill people who are frustrated because they can't get their thoughts out to other people with sounding/looking like a complete twat.
The blame lies with the "cinematic experience" crew that unfortunately are getting backed by the publishers. When a game like The Order 1886 claims to be just like the movies, it completely forgets over any perceived notion of games becoming more than just games to the normal Joe. I also blame David Cage and his forehead.
With a closing statement, my argument that games could be a great art form is that no other art form allows as much player agency as a game can. It's almost easier to immerse yourself in the universe of a game and if a developer can perfect the art of suspension of belief, I believe turning games into an art form will be easier than anticipated.
